1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 10-03232
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
On September 17, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns under Guideline
H (Drug Involvement). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DOD on September 1, 2006. 
In an October 4, 2010, response, Applicant admitted all allegations raised under
Guideline H and requested a hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me on December 6,
2010. The parties proposed a hearing date of February 15, 2011. A notice setting the
hearing date for February 16, 2011, was erroneously issued on February 19, 2011. An
amended notice was sent on January 27, 2011, setting the date of the hearing for
February 15, 2011, as contemplated. I convened the hearing as scheduled. Applicant
gave testimony and presented 10 documents, which were admitted without objection as
exhibits (Exs.) A-J. Department Counsel offered two documents, which were admitted
as exhibits (Exs.) 1-2 without objection. On February 24, 2011, the transcript (Tr.) of the
proceeding was received and the record was closed. Based on a thorough review of the
 Tr. 20.      1
 Tr. 21.      2
 Tr. 37.      3
 Tr. 38-39.      4
2
testimony, submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant failed to meet his burden of
mitigating security concerns related to drug involvement. Clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 24-year-old software engineer who has worked for the same
defense contractor since June 2009. He attended a highly competitive university, where
he earned a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering with a minor in mathematics.
He is currently enrolled in a master of science and engineering program. Applicant is
single and has no children. 
Applicant first experimented with drugs in high school, when he used marijuana a
few times with friends at boarding school. He talked about those experiences with his
parents, ceased using drugs, and graduated in June 2005. In college, he often saw
people using marijuana at parties. As a freshman, he used marijuana on a couple of
occasions. In his sophomore year, Applicant was in an “experimental mood” and he
tried it again “three or four times.”  During the first semester of his senior year, Applicant1
used marijuana about three or four times. In sum, he used the substance about a
dozen times between the ages of 15 or 16 and 21. He bought it about two times. He did
not develop a reliance on the drug. Applicant surmised that “there was really no rhyme
or reason to [his usage], it wasn’t a habit, it was just stupid immaturity, just doing it
whenever, for no real reason whatsoever. . . . Being a kid, being experimental, trying
new things, and I regret it.”2
In 2008, Applicant started his senior year of undergraduate school after a
summer internship with his current employer. He believes he may have signed an
acknowledgment of an anti-drug policy, but is unsure.  He knew that he should not use3
illegal drugs during his internship and did not use them that summer.  4
During the 2008-2009 academic year, Applicant faced some difficulty balancing
his studies and collegiate extracurricular obligations with the burdens of completing his
senior project, an activity fraught with teamwork and deadlines. When his project team
split up, Applicant faced additional stress in the preparation of his senior project. That
winter, feeling he needed to “pull an all nighter” on occasion, he looked into Adderall.
Adderall, a prescription medication generally used for Attention Deficit Disorder and
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, was available through campus peers and used
for helping students stay alert and focused. It is a stimulant. Applicant purchased the
medication on three different occasions from peers who had been prescribed the
medication. On reflection, Applicant states that his use of the medication was immature
 Tr. 24.      5
 Id.      6
 Ex. 2 (Interrogatories, dated Dec. 18, 2009 – Feb. 9, 2010) at 17.      7
 Tr. 15. Applicant’s use of the air duster was infrequent and sporadic. He estimates he used it every few      8
months. Tr. 38.
 See Tr. 43, Ex. 1 (SCA, dated Oct. 19, 2009) at 55-57 of 62.      9
 Tr. 26-27.      10
 Tr. 26.      11
 Id.      12
3
and “really wasn’t worth it.”  He has not misused Adderall or any other prescription5
medications since that academic year. 
In March 2009, during his second semester of his senior year, Applicant and
some friends went to a popular spring break venue for “one last hurrah” before
graduation.   During the festivities, some of his friends imbibed psilocybin mushrooms.6
Applicant also indulged in the drug and experienced hallucinogenic effects of up to an
estimated four hours.7
Applicant graduated from undergraduate school in May 2009. Around the same
time, he quit using inhalants, a practice he has used on rare occasions since about
2002. His inhalant of choice was a pressurized air duster, designed for removing debris
from computers and electronics which, when inhaled, can give the user “a buzz, a slight
high when inhaled.”  8
In June 2009, Applicant started his current position. In October 2009, he
completed a security clearance application (SCA), in which he completely divulged his
past illegal drug use to the extent he also included illicit drugs which he never tried, but
use of which he had been aware.  He received an interim security clearance later that9
month. He also advised his friends and former peers to be candid about his past drug
use if questioned.10
In mid-November or late-November 2009, Applicant returned to his alma mater
to attend a college party hosted by some former undergraduate peers from a student
theatrical organization with which Applicant had been active. Caught up in their reunion,
Applicant had a “momentary return to the college mentality, where [he] really wasn’t
thinking about consequences.”  When psilocybin mushrooms were produced, he again11
tried the drug. Since making that decision, “there hasn’t been a day that has gone by,
since that day, that [he has not] thought about it, and regretted it from the bottom of
[his] heart. From the bottom of [his] gut.”  He is particularly rueful about his decision12
“because it was shortly after where I had my interrogation” in connection with his
 Id.      13
 Tr. 27-28.      14
 Ex. 2, supra, note 7 at 4.      15
 Tr. 29.      16
 Tr. 28-29.      17
 Id.; Ex. E (Graduate transcript, dated Dec. 28, 2010).      18
 Tr. 28; Ex. B (Appraisal, 2009), Ex. C (Appraisal, 2010).      19
 Tr. 28-29; Ex. D (Peer recognition awards, 2010).      20
 See, e.g., Exs. B and C, supra, note 19; Exs. H and J (References, 2010).      21
 Ex. G (Intern event invitation, 2010).      22
 Tr. 29.      23
 See, e.g. Tr. 29, 33. Applicant stated, “I haven’t been exposed to drugs at all. I don’t . . . hang out with      24
people who use them.” Tr. 33-34. 
4
security clearance.  After using the drug, Applicant immediately appreciated the13
severity of his lapse, although he was initially unsure of what the repercussions would
be.  When interviewed by Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigators on14
December 18, 2009, he, with notable embarrassment, disclosed his use of the
mushrooms the previous month.15
Appreciative of the fact that drug use is incompatible with his profession,
Applicant made immediate changes in his life and gave “up on the whole party scene.”16
In trying to “rededicate toward making [himself] a better person,” he decided to
concentrate on health and working out, ultimately losing 25 pounds.  He also took up17
golf and joined a local basketball league. Applicant enrolled in a competitive master’s
degree program, in which he is currently excelling.  He became absorbed in his work,18
where his rating has improved from “satisfactory contributor” to “exceptional
contributor,” a ranking rarely distributed by company management.  In the wake of his19
renewed concentration on his work, Applicant has been awarded multiple peer-initiated
performance awards in the past year.  He is given high praise by his superiors and20
peers for his reliability and work product.  In the summer of 2010, he was honored by21
being selected to speak at an event honoring company interns.  In his spare time, he22
now stays home, where he is currently studying Spanish language, or visits with his
girlfriend. Socializing with peers is usually limited to meals or meeting for a drink.23
Applicant has not used illegal drugs since November 2009 and he has no
interest in using them again. He no longer associates with the undergraduate crowd
with whom he once used drugs.  He has not returned to campus since November24
2009. A non-drug using peer from college confirms that Applicant is no longer a habitue
 Tr. 29.      25
 Tr. 30.      26
 Tr. 49.      27
 Tr. 49-50.      28
 Tr. 34, 47.      29
 Tr. 41-42. The last such friend encountered told Applicant that he no longer uses drugs. Tr. 42.      30
 Ex. A (Statement, dated Jan. 18, 2011).      31
 Tr. 35.      32
5
of the campus scene.  His remaining tie to his college is serving as the elected alumni25
member of an adult board overseeing the collegiate theatrical organization in which
Applicant was active as an undergraduate.  It was with those undergraduate members26
he formerly used drugs while at school. Those on the adult board are professionals,
considerably older than Applicant, and do not use drugs at their meetings.  Their27
meetings are professional and conducted off-campus.  Applicant’s girlfriend, who used28
drugs in college, is now drug-free. She encourages Applicant to similarly lead a drug-
free lifestyle.  In addition, residing in the same city in which he went to college, he29
sometimes sees fellow alumni with whom he used drugs at college. On such
encounters, drug use is neither discussed nor indulged.30
Applicant submitted a signed statement confirming that he has not used, bought,
or sold any controlled substances since November 2010. It states his intention to not
use any controlled substance in the future and that he will immediately forfeit any
security clearance granted should he again use drugs.  He knows that his employer31
has a no-drug policy.  Applicant is demonstrably committed to his work and his32
employer. His contrition for his past drug use and his November 2009 lapse is genuine.
He was highly credible in his expressed intent to refrain from illegal drugs. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations
for each guideline, the AG list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this
process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-
person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all reliable information about
the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      33
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      34
 Id.      35
 Id.      36
6
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record.
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. An applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to
rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by
Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a33
preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  34
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration
of the possible risk the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible
extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified
information.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information). “The clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access35
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.36
Based upon consideration of the evidence, Guideline H (Drug Involvement) is the
most pertinent to this case. Conditions pertaining to this AG that could raise a security
concern and may be disqualifying, and those which would mitigate such concerns, are
discussed below.
 AG  ¶ 24.      37
 Id. at ¶ 24(a)(1-2).      38
 Id. at  ¶ 24(b).      39
7
Analysis
Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions about
an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may impair judgment and
because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws,
rules, and regulations.  “Drugs” are defined as mood and behavior altering substances,37
and include drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds identified and listed in the
Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended, (e.g., marijuana or cannabis,
depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens) and inhalants and other
substances.  “Drug abuse” is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a38
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.  39
Applicant admitted he used or abused marijuana, an inhalant, a hallucinogen,
and a stimulant at various times between about 2002 and 2009. With regard to the
hallucinogen, Applicant admitted he used psilocybin mushrooms in 2009, shortly after
receiving a security clearance. He also admitted that he has purchased marijuana. Drug
Involvement Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug abuse); AG ¶ 25(g) (any
illegal drug use after being granted a security clearance); AG ¶ 25(c) (illegal drug
possession, including cultivation, processing, manufacture, purchase, sale, or
distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia); and AG ¶ 25(g) (any illegal drug use
after being granted a security clearance) apply. With disqualifying conditions raised, the
burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate related security concerns.
Applicant’s drug abuse continued from about 2002 until mid-November or late-
November 2009, less than 16 months ago. While the majority of that abuse occurred
when he was a high school or college student, Applicant’s post-graduate lapse with a
hallucinogen occurred after he was granted an interim security clearance. While his
attempts at rehabilitation over the past year are highly impressive, there is presently
insufficient evidence to establish Drug Involvement Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 26(a) (the
behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment). 
Since November 2009, Applicant has refrained from the abuse of drugs. He has
redirected his focus on his career, health, social activities, graduate education, and
other alumni activities. He has changed his ways and no longer visits those areas in
which drugs are used. AG ¶ 26(b)(2) (changing or avoiding the environment where
drugs were used) applies. While he no longer spends time with his former collegiate
troupe, he still has contact with some individuals with whom he formerly used or shared
drugs. While Applicant could work more on eliminating such elements from his life, it is
notable that the examples cited do not use drugs presently. Consequently, AG ¶
8
26(b)(1) (disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts) and AG ¶ 26(b)(2)
(changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used) apply. 
Applicant has been drug-free for less than 16 months. Given his age, contrition,
personal accomplishments, and impressive record for taking rehabilitative action during
that time with regard to his past drug use, I might otherwise mitigate his past drug
abuse as immature folly subsequently overcome by the rigors and responsibilities of
maturity. His use of a hallucinogen within a month of applying for, and being granted, a
security clearance for a position at a major company with an anti-drug policy, however,
gives me considerable pause. To revert to drug abuse six months after college
graduation and a month after receiving a security clearance demonstrates a clear lack
of appreciation of the expectations of those who seek to hold a security clearance.
While Applicant has presented persuasive mitigation about his pre-graduation drug use,
more time than almost 16 months is needed to demonstrate that AG ¶ 16(b)(3) (an
appropriate period of abstinence) applies to his November 2009 lapse.
At the hearing, Applicant made several credible statements regarding his
reasons for quitting drugs and for refraining from their use in the future. In addition,
Applicant submitted highly positive recommendations and assessments from
professional peers. He is valued as an employee and he values his position. Since
quitting illegal drugs in November 2009, his work performance has markedly improved
to the point of excellence, and he has been honored and serves as a younger example
of his company’s quality workforce. It is clear that he will not do anything more to
jeopardize his job or career, which can be sufficient by itself to insure that an applicant
will not abuse drugs in the future. Applicant has also submitted a signed statement of
intent with automatic revocation of any security clearance granted should he use illegal
drugs in the future. I have given appropriate weight and consideration to the signed
statement of intent. Applicant, who is not an attorney, prepared and submitted it after
sufficient time to consider whether it truly reflected his feelings and intentions. I have no
doubt that Applicant is sincere in its expression. I find that AG ¶ 26(b)(4) (a signed
statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any violation) applies. 
The Government met its initial burden of proving the allegations by submitting
Applicant’s highly detailed disclosures in his SCA and an interrogatory. But for
Applicant’s candor, the full extent of Applicant’s past drug abuse and his November
2009 drug use may not have been discovered. In this candor, Applicant demonstrated
impressive honesty. His description of what he has done to rehabilitate himself since
quitting illegal drugs provided sufficient mitigation for his high school and collegiate drug
use. His use of a hallucinogen immediately after receiving a security clearance,
however, is cause for lingering concern about his commitment and ability to remain
drug-free. While his testimony credibly demonstrated that he now appreciates the
severity of his lapse, less than two years is insufficient time to demonstrate behavior
reflecting his commitment to remaining drug-free. Accordingly, Guideline H of the SOR
is concluded against Applicant.
9
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2 (a). Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate
determination of whether to grant a security clearance must be an overall
commonsense judgment based on careful consideration of the guidelines and the
whole-person concept. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the “whole-person”
factors. Multiple facts speak in Applicant’s favor. He is a bright, credible, and highly
articulate 24-year-old man. His pro se appearance was highly organized and
impressive. He is a graduate of a prestigious university. He openly disclosed his past
drug use on his SCA, where he was over-inclusive in his description of his exposure to
illegal drugs and their abuse. Since ending his abuse of drugs in November 2009,
Applicant has done much to demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation. He has started
work on a master’s degree in a competitive field. He has risen as a star performer at
work and earned the respect of his peers and supervisors. Applicant has become an
integral part of an alumni board. In focusing on his health and starting to compete in
sports, he has lost significant weight. He eschews those places where drugs are used,
and tries to avoid those who have been known to abuse drugs. He devotes his free time
to foreign language study and to his girlfriend, who is supportive in his drug-free
lifestyle. Overall, he demonstrated several indications that he has matured considerably
in the past 15 months.
Applicant has demonstrated contrition over his past drug use, successful
personal rehabilitation, and notable maturation since November 2009. He also
demonstrated both a clear understanding of the requirement that he remain drug-free,
as well as an unequivocal commitment to remain so. However, given the
circumstances, less than 16 months of drug-free living does not establish a sustainable
record of successful commitment. While Applicant presented highly persuasive facts
and is poised on total rehabilitation for his drug use as a whole, drug involvement
security concerns are not fully mitigated at this time. Clearance is denied.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
10
Paragraph 1, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge